Sunday, August 17, 2014

Michael Voris has still to correct Fr.Robert Barron and Fr.Jonathan Morris using text from Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to show the two priests that they are irrational and non traditional.

Michael Voris affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus.However he accepts it with an error as do the two priests. Simon Rafe at Church Militant also makes the same error.They assume

1) That there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II.

2)These cases are visible to us in 2014.

3)Or that there is some text in Vatican Council II to support this irrationality.

For Simon Rafe those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He implies:

1) There are cases known to him in 2014 who are saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance.This is what he infers.

2)These cases are probably also visible to Michael Voris.This is inferred.

3)Lumen Gentium 16 refers to defacto cases saved in the present times in invincible ignorance( the text does not state this).This is inferred if LG 16 is considered an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is the same error made by the two priests.

Michael Voris cannot correct them since HE TOO assumes Vatican Council II is a break with the past.To be a break with the past LG 16 would have to be not invisible but visible for him.

If he said that those saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities known only to God but are not explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition then he would be rational.If he said LG 16 is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus then he would be rational.I am still waiting for him to say that Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Even though he says that he affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus Michael Voris is making the error as the two priests and Simon Rafe.

-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Jonathan Morris never apologized he assumed the confusion is the norm in the Church

Christopher Ferrara says dogmas and doctrines are not important for Pope Francis.He quotes a non catholic writer who comes to the same conclusion.1.He would agree that Vatican Council II is very important for Pope Francis.So the SSPX has to accept Vatican Council II to have full canonical status.

There is an alternative. The SSPX can accept Vatican Council II and also Tradition. I do not mean the ambiguous version of Vatican Council II. That too is in error.

This would not be the vague version of Vatican Council II, the flaky one accepted by some traditionalists.

They have compromised with the general irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.

The SSPX can accept Vatican Council II as I do,.

1)This is the only rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.

2)It is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

If they accept how I interpret Vatican Council II, they would have to admit that they were wrong all these years.

The SSPX priests in Rome understand what I say.They know it is rational.However if they say it aloud they would be punished by their superiors at Econe. It would be considered disobedience.

They would also be in direct conflict with the Vatican and the Left.

So they remain silent and allow the error to continue. For them too, dogmas and doctrines are not important.

Lay Catholics friends of the SSPX must come to their assistance now.Do not let an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II accepted by all camps, be an obstacle to their entering into the Church with full canonical status.

The Society of St,.Pius X (SSPX) priests and leadership are afraid to admit that there is a a rational interpretation of the Council and it is in accord with Sacred Tradition.

Lay Catholics, friends of the SSPX must not allow the progessivists to take advantage of this general ignorance.

There is is one simple step required for this reconciliation.It is this.

The SSPX must admit that all salvation in Heaven is not physically visible and known to us in 2014.These persons are seen and known only to God.

Now with this rational statement, appeal to the SSPX to do theology and philosophy.

Also ask them to have the integrity to answer questions about the Catholic Faith and to admit when they are irrational and wrong.

Ask Bishop Bernard Fellay and the SSPX priests how can they imply that Nostra Aetate 2( saved with a ray of the Truth) is an exception to Tradition? (Do they know any case in 2014 ? Does Vatican Council II say that these cases are known to us? Does Vatican Council II say that these cases are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?)

Ask them to answer these questions clearly and in public and not say 'Fr.Feeney said this ' or that 'Pope Pius XII said that'.

Assuming Fr.Feeney was wrong ( and he was not) or that he was correct, how is Nostra Aeatte 2 and exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

Lay Catholics who use this reasoning with the SSPX will find that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

It's just that the priests, bishops and cardinals within and outside the SSPX,do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam ulla salus.They do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with Vatican Council II.

Those lay Catholics who want a reconciliation of the SSPX, and a reconciliation with sane doctrine,should appeal to the SSPX and get a reply from them.Cristopher Ferrara is avoiding a comment on this issue and so is Mons.Ignacio Barreiro, Drr.John Rao and correspondents of the Rorate Caili.I accept Vatican Council II without the dead are visible premise .I do not assume that these deceased are explicit for us or that they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The SSPX does not agree with me and neither do they disagree with me.